Justice will be served.
That’s one of the great lies we tell ourselves in this country. Someday, somehow, justice will have its way and the rule of law will be upheld. It’s a comforting idea, but try telling it to Cameron Todd Willingham who was murdered by the state of Texas in 2004 for a crime he likely did not commit. Was that justice or was it the desire for revenge at all costs?
The Roman Polanski case was of course different from that of Mr. Willingham. Whereas Willingham turned down plea deals and continued to insist upon his innocence up to the moment he was killed, Mr. Polanski plead guilty to his crime of having unlawful sex with a minor – a crime with much lower consequences than Willingham’s triple murder.
Two different men, two different situations and two different outcomes, but it illustrates the idea that the primacy of law is a total fantasy. Polanski had every reason to believe, as did Mr. Willingham, that justice would not be served in his case. He was being railroaded by an ego driven, headline grabbing judge who sought to make an example of a celebrity in a juicy, high profile case.
Instead of letting the law run its course, Polanski fled. He paid a price for his crime both before and after, but for 30 years justice has been blocked from having its final say. Now with Polanski’s surpirse arrest in Switzerland, it sounds like that all might change. The question is, why now? He owned a home in Switzerland and conceivably could’ve been apprehended at any time. Why is it more important to see justice done now than it was 10 or 20 years ago?
Newser’s Michael Wolff suggests the Los Angeles prosecutor’s office wants revenge for being made to look bad in last year’s documentary Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired. I don’t quite buy that argument since the villain of that piece was judge Laurence J. Rittenband, now deceased. I like Wolff’s second argument better: the desire for headlines by whoever is now calling the shots in Los Angeles is driving this thing. The documentary breathed new life into the case and the powers that be see it as an opportunity to milk it for a little press.
Those who are rightfully repulsed by Polanski’s crime are celebrating the fact that justice may finally be served, but they’re kidding themselves. It’s a quaint notion that may help us sleep at night, but it’s a lie. Thanks to Judge Rittenband, the possibility of genuine justice in this case was erased 30 years ago. No matter what you think about Polanski or his crime, you’re not going to get what you want here.
I tend to think that Polanski will return, receive time served (42 days) for his original crime and receive a slap on the wrist for fleeing the country, but who’s to say someone in the prosecutor’s office won’t see this as an opportunity for advancement now that the TV cameras are rolling? The system has failed once in this case already and it has failed others in the past with much higher consequences. Do we really trust it now?
Filed under: Opinion
Tags: Roman Polanski
it indeed seems a bit silly of a move
I have to admit I’m totally torn. A silly move, and yet maybe a necessary one to put this thing to rest once and for all. I’m skeptical that can happen and I’m even more skeptical about the motives of the prosecutors, but we’ll see.
Yeah, the reasoning behind this is odd but the LA district attorney’s office has been seeking to nab Polanski since 2005, so that predates the documentary although all indications are that the documentary likely enflamed the urgency of the situation. Polanski won his Oscar in 2002, so it’s unlikely that was a factor either.
The motives aren’t clear here but they really don’t matter. This is likely to only fan the flames of conservative hatred for Hollywood elitists, liberal Europeans, and France in general (and considering the condescending response from France and Hollywood, some of that is deserved). It will also lead to much political grandstanding by folks on both sides of the aisle and pad the pocket books of the lawyers in multiple countries lucky enough to get Polanski’s dollars. Polanski will likely get a stern talking to and Fox News will get a jump in ratings, but I agree he will likely negotiate yet another slap on the wrist.
The crime is horrible and he plead to it, plus he fled the country rather than face justice, so I can’t defend Polanski. Whatever happened to him before the crime doesn’t discount the crime itself, and the court case shenanigans don’t vindicate him either. But justice? The victim just wants it to go away and last time I checked, there’s no indication this aging pederast has been stalking teens abroad. Is fleeing the country really worth all this?
Whom or what are we protecting other than our sense of righteous indignation?
The best quote I’ve read about this so far is by Jonathan Rosenbaum -””American lynch mobs never die; they only become more self-righteous about their savagery.” http://www.jonathanrosenbaum.com/?p=17099
The way I see it, is that if the victim can forgive and forget, then so should everyone else. There is no justice in this. If prison is about rehabilitation and peace of mind for the victim and their family, then arresting Polanski now, 30 years after the fact, when the victim doesn’t even want it pursued, serves no purpose other than as an attention grabbing CYA move by LA prosecutors. Shameful.
I’m sorry but I don’t share the take on this issue that so many express.
I’m unsure why only one side of the original lack of “justice” is emphasized by people. Yes, Judge Ritterband acted improperly. But I never saw justice in the decision to plea bargain Polanski down to the softest possible conviction in the face of what he actually did. In the end he never served anything like the sentence his actual crimes deserved. And what terrible ongoing price did he pay for that? Living in a country where he was celebrated as a cultural icon and his crimes were routinely minimised, blamed on the victim, or rationalised away based on Polanski’s difficult upbringing and the horrendous murder of his wife.
Setting that aside. He illegally fled the country. What is wrong with him being accountable to that?
Sartre, that was really well said.
And the victim didn’t forgive and forget. She just moved on with her life as best she could because it was the only thing she could do. Also, she got a very nice settlement payment from Polanski. I read somewhere that she got double the money if she would come out and say she forgave him, but that may just be media-generated bullshit. It seems to me, and I admit to not being completely informed on every fact in this case, that after being dragged through the mud this woman decided that maybe the best thing would be to take the money and let it be done with, so she could move on and try to put it behind her somewhat, and finally live her life. Every time this comes up she’s got the media knocking on her door asking her to talk about it again. I suspect that the reason she’s saying let it go is because she doesn’t want to deal with all that shit again.
Sartre, I’m not saying it’s right to let Polanski get away, but the victim wasn’t seeking restitution or justice and the public definitely wasn’t even aware of Polanski’s crime in any real sense before this weekend. So again I ask, what point does all this serve? Who really benefits from this?
And it surely isn’t justice or the people of California, who will be deprived of justice being applied to ONGOING crimes being committed right now in California, with real victims and real perpetrators, because the DA will be expending valuable time, resources, and funds going after Polanski in what is likely to be a lengthy court battle just to bring him to the U.S. California is bankrupt.
“with real victims and real perpetrators” sure sounds like I don’t think the woman involved wasn’t victimized or that Polanski isn’t guilty of the crime, which I don’t intend.
I intended to say that the citizens of California would be better off having the DA going after fresh cases, were the crimes and subsequent victims’ pain and suffering is immediate and the criminals still potentially intent on re-offending. An imperfect response, to be sure, but more reasonable and realistic to me.
I appreciate what you’re saying Joel but it seems shady ground to me. If I commit a crime am I not accountable? It may have occurred many years beforehand but does that make me any less accountable now? Should I not be prosecuted for my crime because I have the financial resources to ensure that the State will incur great legal cost? And, I know you’re not saying this, but if I’m beloved as a film maker am I somehow less accountable for my crime?
Sartre, the third part of your question is the exact reason most plea deals occur: the DA decides that either a jury case is too difficult to win or too expensive to prosecute and so they offer a plea deal knowing the defendant is equally willing to avoid trial. Yes, that is a very reasonable (and incredibly commonplace) excuse to have avoided this in the first place.
Further, defendants are often held to a lower standard if so much time has passed that the prosecution is more for the benefit of the record than the public (or based on their age and health at the time of prosecution, as a punitive sentence has little meaning if you’re just going to die shortly after it’s begun).
Thankfully, Americans are now whipped into a frenzy over something most didn’t even know or recall happened a week ago, so that second part *will now* benefit the public (sorry for the sarcasm, I couldn’t help pointing it out).
I guess our cultural differences come through here Joel. We don’t have plea bargaining in our system and I’m thankful for it. The kind of considerations that are made with regards the historical nature of offending and the impact on the victim is not raised prior to conviction but after it in the context of sentencing. All crime, whether committed by the poor or wealthy, whether historical or contemporary, or the accused is a celebrity or regular citizen is treated as the same. The cost of the legal representation for those being tried is carried by the state when the said person cannot afford it without any discernable dilution in its quality.
Not surprisingly my own country’s judicial model seems fairer to me. Against such standards I am personally comfortable with Polanski being prosecuted.
That system makes more sense than ours, although both processes are skewed if the defendant has deep enough pockets to thwart prosecution through out-spending the state on all manner of devices and authorities.
I wish my lawyer wife was here to seek clarification but I don’t think our system has recourse to the same multitude of devices and authorities. We don’t have so many levels of court, there is no state versus federal divide (our’s is more directly modelled on the Westminister system). I’ve never heard of anyone here thwarting prosecution by these means. Once convicted they can instigate lengthy and costly appeal processes but they do this while in custody.
I suspect Polanski if extradited will be judged a flight risk :-)
Setting aside the angles we’ve been discussing it seems that the extradition arguably violates international law. I do think international law should be respected and have struggled with so many nations (e.g. US, Israel) frequently disregarding it on other fronts.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2227237/international_laws_affecting_roman.html?cat=17
I read some speculation that France may contest extradition on the grounds that they must try him in France as a citizen, so it’s possible he could again escape US prosecution entirely. It’s also possible that even if they extradite him legally that the French government will intervene and pull strings to afford him a more lenient sentence. Even if they get him into U.S. custody, extradition alone could take months to play out in international courts.
When I say devices and authorities, I’m thinking of OJ Simpson and his team of lawyers and specialists that essentially confused the jury with expert testimony and contradictory information. It doesn’t always work but can force the prosecution to drop charges or plea bargain down when they realize the jury is confused or overwhelmed.
I’m sure your wife is far more knowledgeable on this than I am, so I’d be curious to hear what she thinks.
“It doesn’t always work but can force the prosecution to drop charges or plea bargain down when they realize the jury is confused or overwhelmed.”
Defense lawyers here will also attempt to confuse a jury with expert witnesses and contradictory information. We just had such a high profile case with the jury finding someone innocent (he was being re-tried after serving some 14 years for killing his family) who based on polls was judged guilty by the majority of the general public. His defense was paid for by the state. However, there is no option here under the circumstances for the prosecution to drop charges or plea bargain.
Based on the complexities and considerations of the US legal system you’ve outlined I can certainly appreciate its citizens questioning the value of prosecuting this case. As I said though, as a non-American I have no problem with him being prosecuted so long as his extradition doesn’t violate international law.
I’m not surprised by the outpouring of support for Polanski and, to some extent, I can empathize with his plight. Every good fortune in his life has been countered by a bad stroke. However, there is no excuse for what he did.
The mother may been a delinquent parent. The girl may have been starstruck and pliable. The judge may not have acted ethically. But none of that excuses him of the act he perpetrated or of the cowardice he displayed by fleeing instead of bringing his grievances against the judge to the court.
If the rule of law was not followed in the case, fine. But the truth is that Polanski didn’t stay around long enough to find out. He fled before the judge could have even acted inappropriately. I don’t know all the intricacies of the law or this case, but it seems to me that a defendant cannot flee the court in fear of what a judge may do. He can only wait and, if the sentence is not appropriate, he can appeal.
Polanski is a talented, enduring artist who I have immense respect for–as an artist. But in order for justice to be served, he must have his day in court. And if he is found guilty under the rule of law, he should be sentenced like anyone else.
I’m with you WJ. I admire Polanski the filmmaker but cannot respect him for his crimes and subsequent cowardice. If he had taken full responsibility for what he did rather than lied about it (only admitting guilt once the physical evidence was irrefutable), and then faced all the consequences of his criminal actions rather than fled the country he would have given me some basis for respect. I understand the temptation to flee under the circumstances but I cannot respect it or his general conduct in relation to his crimes.
Ahhhh where to begin.
First of all, thank you all for disagreeing politely. I know this is a loaded topic and there are just some lines people aren’t going to cross over no matter how passionately argued, but I appreciate you can be civil about it.
Sartre, I don’t think the difference in our legal system is so much cultural as it is logistical. It’s a fact that if there weren’t plea deals happening every day in our courts, the legal system and jails would become overwhelmed in a flash. I believe it would simply cease to function.
Having said that, I don’t have at my fingertips statistics that tell me the average penalty for a person convicted of a similar crime to Mr. Polanski. As a first time offender (or at least first time caught…one always wonders in cases like this) and as an otherwise upstanding citizen, the lightness of his penalty doesn’t shock me. It does seem low, but until someone can prove to me it’s out of the ordinary, I’m not going to punish Polanski to make up for it.
Even if you can establish that the average first timer receives a lot more than 90 days plus probation, (and did back in the 70s as well), I’d say your problem is with the system and not with Polanski. Why should he pay for every other celebrity that gets away with something?
He should answer to his crime of fleeing justice, though I don’t blame the guy. I can’t honestly say I wouldn’t have done the same thing in the same circumstance. I’m all about personal responsibility and standing up for your actions, but if you think you’re not going to get fair treatment, that changes things.
If the fleeing justice thing was such a big deal to everyone, why didn’t they just try him in absentia?
This brings me back to the real reason why this is happening. Taking nothing away from Polanski’s original crime, this is a total farce. It’s a publicity grab by Steve Cooley. We can’t go more than a few months around here without a juicy celebrity trial.
The notion of there ever being any kind of justice in this case at this point is ludicrous. I think it simply appeals to our artificial notions of right and wrong. The good are rewarded and the guilty are punished. The fact that life never actually really works that way just makes us all the more desperate to make it so.
Having said all that, I have no idea what it’s like to be the13-year-old victim of man nearly 3 times my age. I don’t know what that can do to a person. I’ve never talked to someone that’s happened to. Considering women used to be married off at that age, I expect the average 13-year-old’s ability to cope with that situation is a little higher than they’re giving credit for, but truly that’s not a position I’d ever argue and honestly it’s not worth guessing.
It’s a bit shocking to me how aggressively some people want to sweep this thing under the carpet. Even though the victim has expressed the need to move on, the girl she was at the time may never be able to move on and it freaks me out a bit that many of Polanski’s defenders refuse to even pause and acknowledge that. It’s almost like the abortion debate where you have your opinion on one side or the other and you simply can’t give a centimeter to those who disagree.
I don’t know. Whatever happens in this situation, there is no justice and I don’t feel good about it.
Also, addressing WJ’s point about letting justice play itself out, I realize it’s an enormous stretch, but that’s partly what got me thinking about the dude in Texas who was killed. Totally different situation and the death penalty ups the ante in such situations, but for that guy, justice did not play out and it never will.
For Polanski at the time, he would’ve done whatever time he had to do and be done with it by now (though there’s no telling what mental impact that might’ve had on him even if you don’t factor in his horrible past), but now he’s 76 years old. They’re already talking about him spending weeks in jail before just the extradition matter is solved.
If the guy dies in prison, is that justice? Is that how people want this to end?
And, since we’re on the subject of going soft on celebrity crime is 1 year really enough for gross vehicular manslaughter and drunken driving?
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118009358.html?categoryid=13&cs=1&nid=2564
Considering women used to be married off at that age, I expect the average 13-year-old’s ability to cope with that situation is a little higher than they’re giving credit for, but truly that’s not a position I’d ever argue and honestly it’s not worth guessing.
Women used to be married off that young because people didn’t live as long as they do today, the younger the girl the more likely she was to be healthier and they needed to make sure she gave birth to at least one baby before she died.
I agree with you that some 13-year-olds are more mature than others. And maybe some of them can cope with the situation better than we think. But whatever age the girl was, whether she was 13 or 18 or 35: no means no. The fact that she was that young makes the incident more tragic – and the difference in life experience and power between a 44-year-old man and a 13-year-old girl is vast.
And, since we’re on the subject of going soft on celebrity crime is 1 year really enough for gross vehicular manslaughter and drunken driving?
No, it isn’t. But this is part of the issue. The rules are different for the elite (celebrities, politicians, sports figures, any of the rich and famous). Maybe now they want to send a message that it isn’t okay anymore. It’s unfortunate that they went about it with such buffoonery.
I agree with many of your points about Polanski. Justice was not served for anyone 30 years ago. There are many shady ulterior motives behind this sudden arrest, on the part of the D.A. and Switerzland, and the whole thing does smell fishy. I understand that he wasn’t treated fairly by that idiot judge and the freakin’ media, as always, turned it into a fiasco and made everything worse. That’s how it is unfortunately: celebrities are idolized one day and vilified the next. There’s no in-between – not in the way they live their lives or in the way the media/public treats them.
There are proper legal procedures in place to fight injustice within the legal system. By choosing the option he did he just made things worse. He looked worse. Dorothy Porker would know more about this and maybe she’ll explain if she stops by. As far as I know, the plea bargain is made between the lawyers. The judge can then approve it or he can decide it doesn’t fit the crime and increase (or lessen) the sentence as he sees fit. This judge’s behavior was so out of line it cast a whole other light on whatever decision he was going to make. He was not impartial and either way it wouldn’t have been fair and objective. His professional misbehavior was clear and he was removed from the case in 1978 (but it was after Polanski fled the country). If I’m not mistaken, the lawyers could have appealed and had the sentence overturned (and given that he was removed from the case, obviously they had a very good chance of that).
All that said, I still think that this is a ploy to get everyone’s attention off of issues like healthcare, Afghanistan, etc. Every time a crucial decision is going to made like that suddenly a huge celebrity thing is in the news. Everyone’s attention is drawn to that and away from the real issues at hand. The timing is always impeccable.
See, I don’t remember the facts of the case (so probably shouldn’t go on about it), but was it really established it was non-consensual…I mean to the extent that sex with a drugged person could ever really be considered consensual in the first place?
If so, then yes, that shines a much worse light on Polanski.
And as I said, even if it was consensual, I’d prefer not to minimize it…even though I sort of just did.
The issue here again seems to me to be a flawed system. I really believe it’s too late to do anything about Polanski and his victim rightly or wrongly. It’s a complete clusterfuck and digging it up again now will never change that. Maybe our time would be better served focusing on the system and fixing it.
The sad fact is that it’s still a Man’s World, and rapists end up serving eight months in jail instead of 4. Then they rape again. The Garrido case is more evidence of that — dude kidnapped and raped and served a year.
I don’t think any filmmakers are painting themselves well with this “Free Polanski” petition. As others pointed out, if he was Polanski The Plumber, I doubt Jonathan Rosenbaum — who was more offended by INGLORIOUS BASTERDS — would be speechifyin’.
Craig: Well, he pleaded guilty to non-consensual sex with a minor so I’d say that yes, it was established by him when he did that. Also technically in the eyes of the law, a minor can’t consent. That’s why the statutory rape law exists.
I agree that it’s a flawed system, but I don’t know any system that isn’t. And I think they are working on it. Laws and procedures change and are tweaked all the time. Again, I’m not really in the complete know. I’m not a lawyer, I just work for them now. ;-)
According to Wiki, he was originally charged with “rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under 14, and furnishing a controlled substance (methaqualone) to a minor” but then pleaded guilty to “the lesser charge of engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.”
Does “rape by use of drugs” mean she literally said “no”? Or is the rape implied because she was out of her head?
It’s maybe a dangerous distinction especially when you consider her age, but to me it’s an important one. Yes, my idea of the crime is still horrible, but it just feels different than a physically violent rape.
I’m probably in a dangerous area here and probably shouldn’t go there, but I have a bad habit of plumbing gray areas where I find them. Not a big fan of black and white.
Christian, yeah, you’re right. It is a man’s world and the system and our society is largely broken. There are some genuinely messed up attitudes, especially in this country. From the backward film rating system that favors violence over sex to the difficulty women have had in rape cases (“She was asking for it by the way she was dressed” etc.), we’re screwed up.
Alison is correct, the law does not accept that a minor regardless of their age can consent to sexual contact. However, there are degrees within the relevant laws of most countries that take into account whether the victim consented – at least for those closer to the age limit. Why do we have age of consent laws? It’s because children are rightly judged to not have the emotional, social, and intellectual (and for younger children physical) maturity for sexual contact, particularly with adults, for it not to be potentially harmful. It seems many people have no problem being outraged by the prospect of younger children and physically less mature looking older children having sexual contact with an adult. It’s when they’re closer to the age of consent that things get grey for people. The psychological, social, and intellectual level is not so readily observed if you’re not a little more familiar with children at that age or you’ve just forgotten how young you still were at the age. Having worked with plenty of victims of sexual abuse at that age – some who at the time (with the grooming and encouragement of the adult abuser) thought it was consensual – I have seen the psychological consequences and they’re not pretty. Think for a moment about the enormous power differential on so many levels between a 13 year old and a man in his thirties – let alone a rich celebrity who is trying to seduce you.
That was one level of wrong in this case. Now consider date rape. Can one truly consent to sexual contact when under the influence to a greater extent? She was a fairly slight 13 year old, imagine how quickly and strongly alcohol is going to work. And then he gives her quaaludes – drug that is similar in effect to barbiturates.
The girl pretty much immediately told her mother and the police became involved. This doesn’t sound like the reaction of someone who was consenting (although how consent in these circumstances is possible defies my logic).
Not surprisingly for any human being who could do what Polanski did he initially lied by denying his guilt. He had no sense of remorse or empathy for his victim. Polanski was only looking out for himself.
I suspect Craig that you’d want to tear Polanski apart if he had done that to your own 13 year old girl and thought that 90 days in prison was not justice. I don’t know about US law but here he would serve as a first time offender a few years in prison.
I found the transcript of her testimony on The Smoking Gun and man, it’s a very unpleasant picture that is painted of the events from that testimony. I have not read Polanski’s testimony although I know he did admit he was well aware of her age and that he did in fact have sex with her.
Craig, this is definitely not a black and white case. Part of the problem I have reading the discussions all over the internet is that people are taking one side or another and arguing in absolutes.
But supposedly he drugged her – as opposed to her deciding she wanted to party with him and have some ‘ludes. If a guy slips a date-rape drug into a girl’s drink and she’s out of her head and lets him have his way it’s still an assault on her. The rape is implied because 1) she didn’t voluntarily take the drug and 2) because of said drug she was out of her head and incapable of making an informed decision.
I don’t know. Maybe she did voluntarily take the drugs? She was a young girl, maybe she wanted to appear cool and adult, especially with the gods of Hollywood, who knows? One would expect a 44-year-old adult man to know better and have some ability to control themself. But that wasn’t the case.
I have to say, the more I read about the case, the weirder it is, and that includes this woman. In addition to publicly announcing that she wants the charges dropped, she attended the premier of Wanted and Desired. I understand wanting to put an end to things (and particularly putting an end to the media coverage), but why would you go to some event centering around (and honoring) your alleged attacker? That puts it in a really bizarre light and I think she may be really damaged.
Oh, by the way, the ad on the bottom of the page is for Criminal Background Checks, since this whole thread talks about crime and the law, lol.
I’m sure you’re right that my feelings would be different Sartre had it happened to me or my child, but I also think you’re getting hung up on the wrongness of Polanski’s actions. At the least I’m ambivalent, and at the most I totally agree with you.
But I also think notions of right and wrong and justice were obliterated 30 years ago and they can never be recovered. I’m not particularly up in arms about this latest wrinkle in the case, but I don’t believe it will solve anything. So many seem to believe it will reaffirm the rule of law, but I hold no such fantasy.
Richard Brody in The New Yorker makes some interesting points in a similar stand to the one I’m taking here….but he’s a better arguer. I don’t agree with him in every instance, but I appreciate him trying to outline the middleground between wanting to forget and wanting to form a lynch mob.
“Unlike some who minimize Polanski’s offense in arguing for his release, I am morally outraged and disgusted by the facts of his crime. Polanski didn’t flee judgment, however—he pled guilty to a crime, under a plea-bargain agreement. I would have had no problem with Polanski being found guilty, back then, of a more serious offense and serving a long jail term for what he did. But that’s not what happened; the prosecution didn’t seek any such sentence; it sought probation, Polanski pled guilty under those terms, and fled to France only after learning of Judge Laurence Rittenband’s plan (as detailed in the documentary “Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired”) to override the agreement, after illegal consultation with another prosecutor uninvolved in the case, and imprison him for a long time.
Since fleeing to France in 1978, Polanski has done what the court could only wish every convict on probation would do: he has kept out of trouble, been gainfully employed, been devoted to his family, been a respected member of the community, made a contribution to society. (Sure, he had the benefit of exceptional resources and connections, but only because, to begin with, he demonstrated exceptional talents.) His life in the last thirty-one years has proven the plea bargain that had been negotiated, requiring no further jail time, to have been entirely justified. Polanski has been rehabilitated. And saying so doesn’t lessen my revulsion at the acts for which he was prosecuted.”
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/movies/2009/09/polanski-redux.html
He also has a whole paragraph about Legally Blond which I don’t get, but whatever.
Joel, I haven’t read her testimony. I remember even in Wanted and Desired it was not pleasant.
There’s no question Alison that what he did was wrong and it’s foolish of me to try and shade the wrongness one way or the other, particularly since I’ve admitted I don’t have all the facts at my fingertips.
I’m an in-betweener and I’m as troubled by those who aren’t morally bothered by this as I am by those who seem to be enjoying sweet revenge. That’s a recipe for not having any friends in this situation.
The psychological, social, and intellectual level is not so readily observed if you’re not a little more familiar with children at that age or you’ve just forgotten how young you still were at the age. Having worked with plenty of victims of sexual abuse at that age – some who at the time (with the grooming and encouragement of the adult abuser) thought it was consensual – I have seen the psychological consequences and they’re not pretty. Think for a moment about the enormous power differential on so many levels between a 13 year old and a man in his thirties – let alone a rich celebrity who is trying to seduce you.
That’s exactly what I’m trying to say in part, sartre. You said it much better. And the thing is, how many teenagers think that they are ready for a situation or can handle something only to find that they’re out of their depth? Looking back I realize how young 13 is – but at the time I was 13 I thought I was pretty grown up.
Craig, I responded to your questions about whether the victim in this case consented or not. I’m not getting hung up on the fact Polanski got off so lightly. To me the current situation is solely about his flight. What dismays me though is how the original crime is brought up by his defenders in ways that to me grossly, though inadvertently, minimizes its seriousness.
Yes Alison, I agree. What you think you’re ready for and what you actually are at that age are often two different things. When it comes to sexual contact with an adult getting that wrong as a 13 year old can have long-term psychological effects – hence the age of consent laws.
I was retarded when I was 13.
Little has changed.
I’m willing to let go of it because it’s not a productive line of argument and I’m not comfortable with it anyway, but is it fair to say as far as Alison and Sartre are concerned there is no distinction between a situation where a victim was drugged into submission (and may or may not have submitted without it) and say a rape at gun or knife point?
If that’s the case, I’m cool with that. I’m just curious
“there is no distinction between a situation where a victim was drugged into submission (and may or may not have submitted without it)”
Consent occurs when there is no possibility of the latter. So I personally don’t see a difference. You either consent or you don’t regardless of whether someone holds a gun against your head or drugs you.
That then is probably the main place we disagree. Like I said, he had every reason to believe that he was getting railroaded. That doesn’t make it right that he fled…part of me does think this is necessary just to reestablish the rule of law, but as I said above mostly I think that’s probably fallacy. At this point it’s like trying to put the genie back in the bottle. And again, if his fleeing was such a big deal to the prosecutor, why not try him on that charge in absentia 30 years ago?
The reasoning here is dubious at best and regardless of what I think of Polanski, the LA County DA’s office has better (but less headline grabby) uses for its time.
Even if I felt good about Polanski’s apprehension, I still think the DA is full of shit.
That’s another matter Craig. Like I said to Joel I can understand people questioning the value of extradition in the context of the US legal system. But as an outsider I have no problem with criminals being held to account for their actions – even when their crimes are historical and the person is older (though there is no reason why a healthy 76 year old couldn’t handle being prosecuted).
Craig, I understand that you see grey in the issue of consent where I don’t. Just make sure your actual conduct in life reflects my clear-cut definition :-)
Comment 36 was directed not to your comment about consent. I don’t argue that. It was directed to your earlier comment about Polanski’s flight.
Just for clarification.
Sorry Craig, it’s not always easy to know what earlier point a comment is responding to.
I don’t personally buy the argument that he never committed a crime because his flight was justified by the judge’s intentions. But I certaintly understand where you’re coming from.
“But supposedly he drugged her – as opposed to her deciding she wanted to party with him and have some ‘ludes.”
According to her testimony, she drank the champagne and took a portion of the quaalude at his suggestion, but he did not “slip” it to her. She testified she was well aware of what the drug was and what it would do. Regardless, she was alone with him when this happened and she was aware she had no where else to go. Later, the sex is not consensual at all, according to her testimony, and she made it very clear she didn’t want to have sex.
He was a 43 year old man supplying drugs and alcohol to a minor, getting her into a very suggestive situation by having her strip naked for his photos, and then he had sex with her against her wishes. Sure sounds like rape to me, regardless of her age, experience, or the situation.
There’s really no gray area there.
A clear-eyed and sober appraisal Joel.
Does this impact in any way on your thoughts re the flight issue? Or do you think the seriousness of his original offending is irrelevant to it?
If that question was to me, I still think it’s irrelevant. All along I’ve tried to distinguish between my feelings about the man and his crime and how that crime was treated in court. I still don’t really see what is achieved by apprehending him now and trying him.
This claim is kind of interesting though:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-09-30/polanskis-lost-alibi/
Marcia Clark says David Wells is recanting the claim he made in Wanted and Desired about coaching the judge. It’s a key point in Polanski’s modern defense and without it I wonder how the signatories to the Free Polanski petition will feel.
Wells’ excuse for lying in the movie? “The director of the documentary told me it would never air in the States. I thought it made a better story if I said I’d told the judge what to do.”
What an utter douchebag.
The question was to Joel, Craig. But I’m glad you responded to it.
I agree with Craig. I still find the crime reprehensible but I also think that right or wrong, the prosecutor offered a plea, he accepted and met the demands of the plea, and that was the approved sentence. The judge (apparently) bowed to external pressures and was threatening to ignore the plea and Polanski’s meeting it after the fact, which is within his discretion but highly irregular considering the situation. I believe that usually in ignoring a plea, the judge would intervene before Polanski served his 43 days. I could be wrong, but it all smells.
I also don’t hold it against him that he fled, but I also think he got off fairly easy to begin with. Nothing about the circumstances imply he was going to receive a fair sentence from the judge at that point nor would he likely receive a fair opportunity to appeal. At the same time, he broke the law and he’s still accountable to that.
I alsothink this whole thing is well in the past and I still don’t see the need to drag it all out now, but I can easily understand how it’s ignited peoples fear, anger, and frustration. However, no one was clamoring for apprehending or convicting Polanski a week ago, so I don’t really think the public response merits a fucking thing. In fact, the sudden 30 years after the fact mob mentality response disgusts me.
I’m not for lynching Polanski or anyone else.
But I think there is a place for the kind of public debate and discussion that his extradition naturally raises. And those who express more extreme views play a critical role in stimulating it. How often do people more explicitly and deeply think about ethics? Whether in a technical legal way or within their own personal sense of what is and isn’t ethical or right? And it is useful to identify what considerations mediate our application of ethical analysis. My hope is that out of such discourse comes something of value that helpfully generalizes, even if in only subtle ways, beyond it.
It would be great if this invites people of all persuasions to learn more about the legal system and think about the moral relevancy of the issues involved, but considering the cynicism and knee-jerk reactionary nature of the current political climate in the U.S. I remain skeptical of that at the very least.
But this has been an interesting conversation and it finally forced me to get over my squeamishness and dive into the details of the case itself, although I remain fairly ignorant of much of it.
I’ve found the discussion here informative and valuabe too. Thanks to everyone for contributing to it and doing so in a mutually respectful manner.
I understand your skepticism Joel. I’m just a little less inclined in that direction.
I didn’t address it in my first comment, but I agree with the skepticism of this extradition coming now. All of it stinks. Where I diverge from most, though, is that I believe Polanski should’ve been actively prosecuted in absentia and/or extradited at first opportunity (now was definitely not the first opportunity). Justice was not served thirty years ago and, now, it’s only being served in the most cynical sense.
Craig mentioned the same point about him being actively prosecuted in absentia.
There is a lot of crap in the papers and on the web about this now, and it’s hard to sift out what’s truth from what isn’t. Supposedly they did try to extradite him more than once when they knew he was headed for Switzerland and sent the extradition request papers – that’s what they’re claiming now. On all those occasions he knew they were coming and changed his plans. This time he didn’t change his plans. All of this may merely be a claim on the part of the government, not fact of course. But there are claims now that attempts were made to extradite him before this – that this didn’t come out of nowhere. Not sure whether this is just something they’re saying now or if it has any validity.
It’s difficult for me to believe that they tried and failed to extradite him until now, but who knows? I just hope they give the man a fair trial and put this all to bed. I haven’t been following the story closely, and yet I’m still sick of hearing about it.
Intriguing discussion.
I find it humorous that The New Yorker‘s Richard Brody learned that “the law is reason free from passion” from Legally Blonde, when the Reese Witherspoon-starring film was only quoting Aristotle. (The exact quote actually appears to be, “The law is reason unaffected by desire,” but the former is a fine variant.)
Which brings up more Aristotle to me concerning Aristotle. As he wrote, “Law is order and good law is good order.” In Aristotle’s several responses to Plato’s idealized system of justice, he explores the unobtainable nature of universal justice. This is particularly fascinating in the context of Craig and others discussing how they would react if they were the thirteen-year-old’s immediate family. “A father’s or a master’s justice are not the same as that of the citizens.” The casuists such as St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori went further still, as my review of Taken touched upon. (*Cough, cough.* Haha.)
In any event, I enjoyed the discussion. Sartre was particularly erudite, but then, tying with the Soderbergh discussion in the thread above this, Sartre called Che “the era’s most perfect man,” a most dubious claim to say the least.
“It’s difficult for me to believe that they tried and failed to extradite him until now, but who knows? I just hope they give the man a fair trial and put this all to bed. I haven’t been following the story closely, and yet I’m still sick of hearing about it.”
From what I’ve read, WJ, they haven’t put a tremendous amount of effort into it up until 2005, when they began actively seeking to arrest him again. The reason for this is that France was protecting him and on the occasions in the past where the U.S. sought to have him apprehended abroad, Polanski has been repeatedly tipped off. So in this case, the Americans didn’t follow the protocol and went directly to the Swiss with their request.
Of course, all of this is based on rumor and/or speculation, so like much of this case it all remains incredibly murky. I expect the inevitable movie that will come of this will illuminate at least some of these mysteries.
Alison and WJ, I’m a little torn right now between thinking the motives for extradition are fishy and not being able to get away from the idea that right is right and if nothing else the dude needs to face up to fleeing justice…regardless of what the LA DA has to gain from it.
But, my feeling from the original post stands…that the opportunity for actual justice, particularly for the victim…passed a long time ago and those that think otherwise are deluding themselves. Like Sarte however, the extremes on the other side are a bit disturbing too and I’m still a little shocked at all the names who reflexively signed the Free Polanski petition. Where’s the petition to free his victim from the horror she’s had to deal with all these years?
I’m sort of talking around in circles now.
Craig, you’re right. The opportunity for actualy justice, particularly for the victim passed a long time ago. The unethical behavior of the original judge combined with the blasted media circus fucked up any chance of real justice for anyone. At this point that’s not the only thing this is about though. It’s also about the fact that he fled justice.
I too find the extremes on either side disturbing, both the people who so easily dismiss it with lame, whitewash excuses and the people forming the lynch mobs. Quite honestly I’m very disturbed at the people who reflexively signed the Free Polanski petition (the list of names now includes Ethan Coen *sob*). But Hollywood is filled with rich, privileged people with a sense of entitlement, so it’s not a surprise.
And don’t get me started on Harvey Weinstein calling for all of Hollywood to support him and calling this a “case of morals”. Um, no. There is definitely a LOT of grey area in this situation and a lot of nasty shit went down, but no, this was not a case of morals. There was a crime committed and then a second crime committed when he fled the jurisdiction prior to sentencing. Unfortunately Harvey has a lot of clout and a lot of actors, etc who are signing are probably afraid of pissing him off. Maybe he’s got dirt on them.
matt damon
I misquoted. Harvey referred to it as a “so-called crime”.
COPIED AND PASTED FROM WitD:
It’s a half-hearted cop out of a response, but I would rather say something than remain a coward and stay silent:
This is a difficult situation. Yes, there is no statute of limitations for this case (sorry about that Joe) but the time has really come and gone for any justice here, at least from a legal standpoint. At the very least we must be suspicious of the motives behind this arrest and impending extradition both from the Swiss authorities who engineered Polanski’s detention, and the American prosecutors who are pushing for him to be brought here. While I won’t get into, nor defend the original act with a 13 year-old girl, and I fully understand the pain still felt by many over the lack of closure, I think we also need to gage worldwide opinion, which is prodominantly on Polanski’s side. The prevailing opinion is that the Americans botched the affair, and at this point aren’t entitled to save face. We can apply any kind of moral argument, but the timing here, within a year of the release of the documentary that Joel reviews at the head of this thread, after years of apparent disinterest (or least no desire to look into methods to bring this longtime fugitive from out of protective net) makes his Swiss arrest look shoddy.
Yes, Polanski’s entitlement ‘defense’ as broached by Joel and Tony Dayoub is nauseating as is his refusal to apologize, but in the end this does not mitigate what I see as severe technical mistakes that have now reduced the whole affair to an attempt to avoid complete embarrassment.
The bottom line is this: no matter what any of us thinks, he is sure to get off here with close to nothing in punishment. You can bet on it.
“Sartre called Che “the era’s most perfect man,” a most dubious claim to say the least.”
Just so there is no confusion, Alexander must be quoting Jean-Paul Sartre – not the lesser sartre who comments here.